Ukrainian Philatelist No. 119 (2018)

HANDSTAMPED ODESA TYPE I TRIDENTS
by
Roman Procyk

In late summer 1918, Russian Arms stamps circulating in Ukraine were overprinted with tridents in Kyiv and also in several other designated cities. The Ukrainian government ordered the overprinting to protect the state treasury from an illegal influx of Russian postage stamps from abroad [1]. In Odesa, postal authorities hired three commercial printers to overprint sheets of kopek stamps in postal stocks. One of the printers, Belorusstev-Fonarev, used a letterpress [Ukr. vysokyi druk] and a printing form that had 20 blocks (printing surfaces), each carrying a copy of a master cliché of 5 slightly different double-lined tridents arranged in a row (Figure 1). The tridents, designated Odesa type I subtype a through e, are easily distinguished under low magnification [2–4]. It turns out some stamps with Odesa type I tridents have overprints that look as if they were produced by handstamps and not on a printing press (Figures 4–6, 11, 13–17). These stamps are thought to be very rare by some. Others consider them to be unexplained curiosities. This article surveys some information on handstamp overprinted stamps with Odesa type I tridents and discusses their identification and catalog classification.

Handstamp construction and use

Postal records and collector memoirs do not describe how or when Odesa type I trident handstamps were fabricated or how the devices were used. The stamping device likely had a single trident. It would have been used to place overprints in correct positions on the differently configured sheets of kopek and ruble denominated stamps. Evidence for a 5-trident handstamp with all five sub-types is not known.

A reasonable guess is that a line block acquired from Belorusstev-Fonarev was used in constructing the stamping device. A single subject could be cut from one end of the metal plate on the block and affixed to a handle. Alternatively, rubber replicas of the line block relief could be cast by a stereotyping process using moulds [5]. Single trident handstamps made of brass (or copper), such as the devices with Odesa type IV, types V and VI tridents intended for use on ruble face values and loose stamps, have not been described for Odesa type I tridents. The metal handstamps can be found used together in sequence on stamp sheets, possibly as a sample comparing trident types or for a philatelic arrangement (Figure 2). The overprinting was done at the Odesa main post office and the absence of an Odesa type I trident in the series raises the possibility that postal authorities may have not had a device with this trident, at least not at that time.

Conceivably, a single trident handstamp could be used for correcting machine-overprinted sheets of kopek stamps. Although this is possible, it turns out that Odesa type I single tridents are not known as correcting overprints. In sheets with strongly shifted Odesa type I tridents, the metal handstamp with the Odesa type IV trident is used to make corrections [8], although a philatelic origin for this use cannot be ruled out (Figure 3). Combinations of Odesa type I tridents with the other Odesa type overprints are not known.

Mint stamps with selvage

The general rules for identifying Kyiv type IIa–d single handstamp tridents on kopek face values also apply to single handstamp Odesa type I tridents. However, Odesa trident reprints and private prints complicate matters.

For kopek stamps with attached selvage, a stamp with a margin at left is considered to have a handstamped overprint if it has a trident sub-type other than the sub-type a. Likewise, a stamp with selvage attached at the right is considered to have a handstamped overprint if it has a trident sub-type other than the sub-type e (Figure 4). These stamps could not have been overprinted on a press equipped with the 5-trident cliché. Furthermore, the small amount of ink squash usually seen in one corner of these overprints is consistent with uneven hand pressure applied on a handstamp device.

Out-of-sequence trident overprints on stamps with attached selvage usually have thin solid black lines. Their designs match known trident sub-types, although the intense black color of the overprint ink differs from the grayish ink of genuine overprints [4]. The overprints appear primarily on face values known only as reprints and they are likely philatelic prints (Ger. Gefälligkeits) or private prints (Ger. Privatdruck). They have been described on five face values: perforated 1-, 4- and 20- and imperforate 35- and 70-kopek stamps [4], although other face values may also exist. The “reprint” listing in the Bulat catalog does not distinguish between overprints produced on a machine or by hand [9]. These stamps most likely did not see postal use officially.

Mint stamps in multiples

Handstamped overprints can also be identified on horizontal pairs and larger kopek multiples when the same trident sub-type appears on adjacent stamps. The overprints in the triplet in Figure 5 are all sub-type d varieties and the block in Figure 6 apparently has sub-type a tridents on every stamp, plus a margin at right (and top). These multiples undoubtedly have handstamped tridents, although they may not necessarily represent genuine postal issues.

The perforated 3-kopek stamp is not known to have been overprinted with the Odesa type I trident by the post office and the overprinted stamp did not see postal use, at least not officially. Catalogs list the stamp as a private print [9]. The stamp will often have a sub-type a, sub-type c or sub-type d trident, although the remaining sub-types can probably also be found. It appears that separate handstamps of the Odesa type I trident sub-types must have been fabricated for use on this definitive. The Bulat catalog values the overprinted stamp at $0.50 for mint.

The overprints on the 50-kopek block with strongly shifted centers may also not be genuine. They resemble a trident that Seichter considered to be a forgery (Figure 7). The Seichter trident appears on a single stamp with strongly shifted center, albeit with a slightly different displacement, and has grainy ink that adheres unevenly to the stamp surface. The ink of most genuine Odesa type I trident overprints will not have this appearance. The largely worn lines of the trident may have also been grounds for condemning the overprint.

A design feature common to the questionable Seichter trident and the overprints on the block of four seems to be the broken left inner prong line near the inside vertex. The line does not join with the right line (Figures 8–9). As discussed below, the prong anomaly also appears on other stamps with handstamped tridents (e.g., detail in Figures 12, 15)—a possible coincidence. In sheets overprinted with genuine Odesa type I tridents, position 51 has a defect in the left inner prong line in the same place (not shown) and this suggests that the cliché for the handstamp may have come from this plate position, although other positions with sub-type a tridents cannot be ruled out.

The overall appearance of handstamped overprints on kopeck multiples is also important. Svenson, who lived in Kyiv during the establishment of Ukrainian statehood and later ran a successful philatelic company in Wiesbaden, wrote [10]: “...[Odesa type I handstamped overprints] are present in only a small number, recognizable by their oblique position and partly by oily outcrops on the reverse...” As shown in Figure 10, tridents will usually be rotated slightly and spaced irregularly on stamps overprinted by hand at the post office [11]. The density of the overprint ink also varies from stamp to stamp depending on the number of strikes between handstamp inking. The multiples in Figures 5 and 6 with squarely placed uniform overprints seem at odds with this characterization. The stamps also do not have oily spots on the reverse. One explanation is that they may come from a different “reprint” operation that also produced Odesa type I tridents. Nonetheless, other kopek face values with handstamp Odesa type I tridents that are not private issues or reprints may exist in mint condition, although none were found for this discussion.

Mint ruble values

The Odesa type I trident sub-type identified on overprinted mint ruble face values in Figure 11 appears to be the sub-type a variety. The base spike from the right wing in the trident cuts the double-lined base line only with its left line. The right side has no intersecting line. The wide prong capped by flat tops that come to a point is also a typical sub-type a feature (Figure 12). The overprint ink on these stamps has a solid black appearance and ink squash is usually present at one of the corners of overprints. A reasonable conclusion is that these tridents are produced by handstamps. This is plausible because the press setting for the 100 stamp positions of kopek sheets could not have been used to overprint the 50 or 25 stamps on ruble sheets. The Bulat catalog mistakenly does not make this distinction [9].

Ukrainian Philatelist 10 No. 119 (2018) An oily spot is visible behind the tridents on the reverse (not shown), in agreement with Svenson’s observation. As for trident appearance, this group has overprints with breaks in wing lines in about the same locations on each stamp (Figure 12, red arrows). More importantly, the inner prong lines in the overprints do not come together (Figure 12, red circle). This is also a feature of the overprints on the 50-kopek stamps in Figures 6 and 7.

Used kopek values

The Odesa type I tridents on the canceled multiples in Figures 13–14 appear to also be the sub-type a variety on every stamp. Consequently, a handstamp must have been used to overprint these stamps. The uneven spacing between overprints, rotation of the tridents to the left and occasional ink squash in a corner or edge of an overprint are consistent with this conclusion. The overprints also resemble the handstamped tridents shown in Figures 6 and 11 in ink tone and trident design, which looks worn. The left inner line of the prong in these tridents does not reach the right line at the inner prong apex (Figure 15), as in the prong anomaly described earlier. Oil spots from the tridents are visible on the reverse (Figure 14).

All four kopek multiples are postmarked “Odessa.”The pair canceled on Oct. 10, 1918 (canceller letter “к”) is defaced with punched triangles (Figure 14). All of the other multiples are canceled on Nov. 11, 1918 (canceller letter “і”) and have gouge marks and circular punched holes. Some stamps have carefully crafted repairs of the holes. The block at the left in Figure 13 has traces of parcel card graphics on the reverse.

Although imperforate 15-kopek stamps in used condition are the only face value described, other kopek face values in used condition may also exist [12].

Used ruble values

Ruble face values overprinted with Odesa type I tridents in used condition include imperforate 1- and 3.5-ruble stamps (Figures 16–17). The overprints appear to be the sub-type a variety in every case. They resemble the handstamped tridents on used kopek stamps and mint ruble face values. A design feature common to all of the overprints is the left inner line of the prong, which does not reach the right line at the inner prong apex (Figure 18). It is possible a device with this flaw was used to overprint all of the stamps. In terms of appearance, the tridents on the ruble face values are mostly centered. Roughly half of the overprints slant towards the left, as on the 15-kopek face value. There is even one stamp with a double overprint (Figure 17, stamp 5; detail in Figure 18). Most of the stamps have an oil spot behind the overprint on the reverse (Figure 19).

All of the used ruble face values have “Odessa” postmarks. The stamps can be arranged in two groups according to postmark date: Oct 3, 1918 with canceller letter “ш” (Figure 16) and Oct. 10, 1918 with canceller letter “k” (Figure 17). The first group has one stamp with mutilating punctures (stamp 1 in Figure 16). Stamps with Oct. 10, 1918 cancels have punched triangles (see also Figure 14) or a gouge mark in the case of the 1-ruble stamp. The 3.5-ruble stamps probably come from several sheets because the registration of the green background on the stamps shows significant differences. Plate registration on the 1-ruble definitives does not reveal conclusive information about the stamps.

Catalog listings

Descriptions of the stamps illustrated in this discussion appeared already in the 1920s in books and catalogs, but not without controversy. Svenson scrutinized the popular Senf catalog in his 1926 study of Ukrainian postage stamps [14]. He wrote: “...In a note from the Senf Catalog we read: “[Odesa type I trident] overprint as a single handstamp is undoubtedly observed on some kopek values and 1 and 3.5 ruble imperforated stamps from genuine used postal money orders (October, 1918). The stamps are not official issues distributed at postal windows! [Ger. Keine Schalterausgabe!] Presumably, facilitation of Ukrainization was carried out on the side of the post to this extent [leading to extra overprinting of this trident type by hand]. Of whatever value for specialist collectors [Ger. Für Sondersammler Liebhaberwert].” ”

V. Popov, the Kyiv philatelist who apparently provided the Senf catalog with the description of handstamped Odesa type I tridents, is the subject of Svenson’s polemic that follows: “...I believe Popov with the statement “None distributed at postal windows!” once again represents a position he cannot defend. Such an assertion could only be justified if there is evidence that single handstamp overprints were forbidden. The latter, however, is hardly credible."

On the other hand, when single handstamp overprinted stamps were used for mailings, they could have also been distributed at postal windows. This cannot be proved one way or another since the collectors of the time have not described such things. Equally unlikely is the claim that the face values overprinted with a single handstamp are worth something solely to specialists (which probably means specialized Ukrainian collectors?).

As far as the kopek values are concerned, Popov may well be right, because single handstamp overprinted stamps can only be found in strips or blocks of 4. The ruble values are different, and if they have been determined to be legitimate, a special catalog number should be assigned. This time, there does not seem to be any machination because the clever collectors and dealers of Odesa would have long since facilitated the overprinting of other ruble values with Odesa 1 trident overprints. Are the grapes once again hanging too high?”

The Soviets released the “Chuchin” catalog of Ukrainian postage stamps a year later (1927), ostensibly to facilitate sales of philatelic material in Europe for hard currency, including reprints of trident overprints and items removed from local postal archives in Ukraine. They avoided taking sides on the issue of handstamped Odesa type I trident overprints and simply list seven overprinted stamps: perforated 10-, 20- and 50-kopek and imperforate 3- and 15-kopek definitives and also the imperforate 1- and 3.5-ruble stamps [15]. The accompanying description states: “In addition to typography, the [Odesa type I] crest was also applied by hand using one of the [trident] clichés. The latter are very scarce. The color is black with a slight sheen.” The Soviet catalog does not distinguish between mint and used varieties and provides a single price for each listed stamp. The trident sub-type on the stamps is not identified and there is no mention of reprints, private prints or corrections involving handstamps. The premium for handstamped overprints ranges from about 500 to 1,000 fold.

Svenson’s price list from 1932 clarifies some points [10]. He describes two groups of stamps with Odesa type I tridents affixed by hand. The first includes perforated 10-, 20- and 50-kopek and the imperforate 3- and 15-kopek stamps. Svenson claimed all of these stamps circulated postally. The second includes the perforated 3-kopek stamp and the imperforate 1- and 3.5-ruble stamps, which are either private or non-official imprints. Svenson considered the pricing of stamps in both groups to be possible only according to the scheme for evaluating the nonofficial releases, with the 20-kopek stamp probably being somewhat more scarce.

The Seichter catalogs that date to the 1950s and 1960s mention two face values overprinted with “individual (single) handstamp” [Ger. Einzelhandstampel]. The information appears in notes at the end of the Odesa type I trident section [8]: “known on used imperforate 15-kopek and imperforate 3.5- ruble stamps and also mint perforated 3.5-ruble stamps. Unexplained [Ger. Ungeklärt].”

Seichter did not provide prices. In a postscript he added the mint imperforate 3.5-ruble stamp of C. W. Roberts to the listing (most likely the stamp in Figure 11) and also mentioned overprinted imperforate 1- and 3.5-ruble stamps possibly being trial overprints [Ger. verwendete Probedrucke?] that were on the franking of a transfer card posted from Odesa- Korsun to Moscow [16].

Seichter apparently did not sign stamps with these or similar overprints. He discussed the handstamped imperforate 1-ruble stamp in a 1963 review of philatelic literature [17]:

“The ruble values with Odessa type I overprint I [take] for counterfeits since the shape of the overprint differs from the genuine one and as far as being recognizable, it is always under either a heavy postal cancellation or a defacing punched hole.”

Bulat has expertized the ruble face values (Figures 17 and 19). The Bulat catalog lists these stamps as both mint and used (presumably with handstamp and not printed Odesa type I trident overprints) [9]. The used imperforate 1-ruble stamp is priced $125. No price is listed for the mint stamp or the 3.5-ruble face value.

Contemporary catalogs from Ukraine, such as Kramarenko’s, mirror the Bulat listing. However, Kramarenko increases Bulat’s price for the ruble face values 10-fold to $1,200 [18]. The catalog published by Mulyk has the eight Svenson face values, plus the imperforate 1-kopek stamp— all with handstamped overprints [19]. The group appears without prices but is labeled “RR” or very rare. In this situation when catalogs leave collectors with a range of opinions, the practical solution is to re-examine the stamps in a broader context.

Concurring evidence

Odesa type I tridents on the face values that are not private prints or reprints match the sub-type a design in almost every feature. This can be established with reasonable certainty from the mint stamps in Figure 11, which have well defined overprints.

Examination of computer-enlarged scans of the less distinct overprints obscured by heavy postal cancellations or punctures also confirms a match with the sub-type a trident. Inasmuch as this Odesa type I sub-type appears on all of the used kopek stamps and the ruble face values, it is likely that the same trident sub-type will be found on other stamps in this class, such as the remaining kopek face values with handstamped Odesa type I trident overprints listed in catalogs. A matching trident design is reassuring, nevertheless, a complete evaluation should include a look at the overprint ink, underlying stamp and possibly other properties as well.

The postmarks in Figures 20, 21, and 22 have dates from the early-mid circulation period for trident overprinted stamps of the Odesa Postal District. They show features typically seen on genuine postmarks. The 11 November 1918 cancellations on the 15-kopek multiples in Figures 13–14 match the appearance of postmarks on a parcel card sent from Odesa the same day (Figure 20). The canceller in both instances has the letter “i” and magnified images reveal similarities in the spacing, size and appearance of the date numerals (Figure 21). A logical conclusion is that the postmarks on the multiple were affixed to the stamps at a post office window the same day as the parcel card, or sometime before the canceller digits were changed to a different date. The other two October 1918 postmarks that appear on the ruble denominated stamps and a 15-kopek pair may also be known on other loose stamps or transfer cards posted at Odesa, although examples of these cancellations could not be located.

While only three different dates attest to the period when stamps with Odesa type I tridents from handstamps were used, it is certainly possible they may have circulated at other times and that used stamps with additional dates may exist. Furthermore, finding several copies of a scarce stamp with identical postmarks may not be unusual. A likely source will be money transfer or parcel cards from which the stamps were removed and sold to collectors as loose singles. The stamps will have the very same postmarks and probably identical mutilations if they come from a single card or from a series of cards sent on a particular day to one recipient. A collector can get lucky if the post office sold stamps on that day with overprints that turn out to be scarce or rare (Figure 22). The canceled stamps with handstamp Odesa type I tridents in Figures 13–17 seem to fit this scenario, although having only a small number as loose singles makes any determination tenuous.

Ungeklärt!

Collectors may still doubt some aspects of Odesa type I trident handstamp use, such as the reason for overprinting by hand. It is certain Odesa type I tridents were applied by handstamp to groups of Arms definitives on different occasions. The reprints (Figure 4), private prints (Figure 5) and remaining overprinted stamps (Figures 11–17) support this conclusion. However, “overzealous Ukrainization” is probably not the reason why overprinting by hand
was authorized or even necessary at a time when high volume machine overprinting was in progress and in-house overprinting of ruble face values had begun with brass handstamps carrying the other Odesa trident types.

Overprinting trials using Odesa type I trident handstamps also sound improbable. Fabrication of a stamping device would likely require disassembly of the printing frame [5] and this would have been possible only after thousands of stamps had already been overprinted at the press. The worn appearance of overprints produced by hand on the illustrated stamps suggests old line blocks from the print shop were used and this probably means the stamps could not have come from an early trial.

An alternative explanation is that several line blocks showing varying stages of wear got into different hands after overprinting ended at Belorusstev- Fonarev. Demand for decommissioned printing blocks may have been spurred by the government’s order requiring trident overprinted stamps on all postal franking after October 1, 1918. Private individuals could have used the blocks on more than one occasion in various ways with different black inks and stamps—creating the various reprint varieties and private prints.

Nevertheless, a fabricated device with the sub-type a trident may have also been kept at the post office as an extra handstamp for occasional use, albeit briefly. That may account for the scarcity attributed to stamps overprinted this way and also the small number of known October and November 1918 postmarks. While this sounds plausible, there is no information on postal use of an extra Odesa type I handstamp. Moreover, the need for an extra handstamp in late 1918 must have been nil. Most postal stocks had probably been processed by that time and the State Comptroller Department restricted the overprinting of any additional stamps from nonpostal
sources [21].

Why particular face values had to be overprinted additionally by hand is also not clear. The imperforate 15-kopek stamps in Figures 13–14 are a face value that is not a scarce stamp for any of the basic Odesa overprint varieties prepared at a press (Odesa type I, II or III), perforated or imperforate, mint or used. The 15-kopek face value is also not known as an Odesa type I reprint [4]. It is hard to imagine 15- kopek stamps were in short supply at post offices or that a large cache of unoverprinted stamps was found in a post office vault sometime later and this required extra overprinting by hand with an Odesa type I trident device. One thought is to call the imperforate 15-kopek stamps a special reprint variety. However, deciding how much they may be worth is another matter. Canceled blocks of four have appeared at recent auctions with an estimated price of $50 [22]—reasonable for Odesa type I trident reprints. Other times, they appeared with an auction estimated price of roughly $600 [23].

There is also no simple explanation for the different orientation of postmarks on the stamps in the figures. The stamps allegedly come from transfer cards, as suggested by the stamp mutilations. A postal clerk expediting a money transfer or parcel will likely hold a canceller only one way while postmarking the entire transfer card (see Figures 20 and 22). Consequently, the orientation of postmarks should not vary much on stamps removed from the card or from a series of cards sent on the same day in sequence. This assumption should apply to the 3.5- ruble stamps and the 15-kopek pair with triangular holes. It is possible these stamps were attached to a postal form by the same postal clerk, postmarked at the same window and handled at the same back office that made the distinct triangular holes. Yet the stamps must have been affixed in odd order to have acquired all of the observed postmark orientations and mutilations: right side up, up side down, slanted at some angle, etc. Money transfer and parcel cards franked with a mix of unusually oriented stamps may exist but this assumption is hardly reassuring when it comes to understanding the reason for overprinting by hand.

Concluding thoughts

In his 1932 catalog Svenson concluded: “...It is impossible to say anything definite, which could indicate an official origin, on the single stamp impressions, which have been reported for several years, and which are present in only a small number” [10].

From a historical perspective, reconstructing a chronology based on postmark dates also appears difficult because of the small sample of dates. The period of early use for stamps overprinted at the press (Odesa type I, II and III tridents) or by hand (the remaining Odesa trident types) fall within September, 1918. Svenson claimed dates as early as August for stamps overprinted with Odesa type IV tridents [10] and this suggests that stamps overprinted by hand may have circulated before the machine overprinted kopek face values had been released. As mentioned earlier, it is also possible postal authorities released a small number of stamps overprinted with Odesa type I tridents by hand after machine overprinting ended. However, no documentary evidence for this exists.

An insightful discussion of these matters comes from S. Kapnist, an Odesa collector active during the overprinting period. He wrote about Odesa trident overprints in the early 1920s but his manuscript remained unpublished in the Soviet Union for obvious reasons. The text survived only in handwritten or re-typed copies from later periods. Kapnist’s study was finally published in 1991 from a 1960 hand transcribed text [24]. Kapnist wrote: “...In light of the extreme lack of discipline exhibited by officials at Odesa’s Main Post Office, from 1919 onwards the fact that a stamp has a postal cancellation cannot be seen as a guarantee of authenticity of the stamp or its overprints, even conditionally. Officials gladly agreed to apply a postal cancel on any stamp presented to them in exchange for even the most modest of rewards and sometimes even without charge. Consequently, a postmark with an uncertain cancellation year does not increase the value of the stamp."

Equally troublesome, although not entirely implausible was the practice to convince Odesa postal officials to cancel stamps using previous year numerals or a certain date. In any case, this author has come across postal officials who made these sort of offers and on quite favorable terms. Some extra effort was needed to get a postmark placed on stamps affixed even on cutoffs of forwarding [parcel card] or transferring [money card] forms. The Chaimowitz brothers—Odesa dealers with the worst reputation—pursued this practice with vigor.

The Chaimowitz brothers gained extreme notoriety in Odesa philatelic circles with their stamp “clinic.” They managed to acquire a large cache of parcel cards and money transfer forms. In spite of all of the stamps and despite the customary postal cancellation defaced with punched holes, triangles, or sometimes simple gouges made with an awl, they managed to Ukrainian Philatelist 18 No. 119 (2018) glue together and repair damaged stamps with virtuosic skill in order to sell them as fresh undamaged material...”

Kapnist did not mention a single handstamp with the Odesa type I trident in his description of stamps and reprints having Odesa type I tridents and Seichter likely never saw Kapnist’s text. Nevertheless, the declaration that Seichter makes in his catalogs— ”Ungeklärt!” [unexplained]—seems to still be relevant when summing up what is known about stamps with Odesa type I handstamped tridents.

Note: The comments of A. Balaban, B. Fessak, A. Labunka, T. Pateman and V. Zabijaka are much appreciated, as are stamps made available for study by A. Balaban, T. Pateman, J. Roberts and Raritan Stamps Inc.

Refrences and notes

1.Epstein, A. “Classic Ukrainian Trident Issues: An Overview. Chapter 1: Classification and Listing.”Ukrainian Philatelist No. 86 (2001): 54–57.
2. Seichter, R. 1953. “Ukrainian overprints of the Odesa District and their Genuine Features” [Die
Ukraine-Aufdrucke des Bezirks Odessa und ihre Echtheitsmerkmale] Special Print of the Berlin
Philatelic Club of 1888, new series #17, 3–4 (in German).
3. Roberts, C. W. and Seichter, R. 1966. The Trident Issues of the Ukraine, Part 2, Odessa. 2nd ed.,Privately published, 5.
4. Procyk, R. “Trident Reprints: Identifying Odesa Type I Varieties.” Ukrainian Philatelist No. 117
(2017): 5–24.
5. Procyk, R. “Plate Varieties and the Printing of Odesa Type I Tridents.” Ukrainian Philatelist No. 118 (2017). 5-11.
6. Bulat, J. 2003. Comprehensive Catalogue of Ukrainian Philately. Private publication, 84.
7. Seichter, R. 1966. Special Catalog Ukraine 1918–20. [Sonder-Katalog Ukraine 1918/1920.] Soltau, private publication, 19 (in German).
8. Seichter, R. 1966. ibid., 17. Handstamp correction on perforated 2 kopek and imperforated 1 and 3 kopek stamps is mentioned in notes at the end of the Odesa type I trident section. This apparently refers to corrections with Odesa type IV and not Odesa type I trident handstamps.
9. Bulat, J. 2003. ibid., 79–80.
10. Svenson, C. 1932. Ukraine-Handbook. Part II. Catalog. [Ukraina-Handbuch. II. Teil-Katalog.]
Wiesbaden-Sonnenberg, private publication, 31–2 (in German).
11. Procyk, R. “Single and Multiple Handstamp Overprints.” Ukrainian Philatelist No. 114 (2014):
4–7.
12. A perforated 10 kopek stamp with an illegible machine cancel in the Ustinovsky collection was noted as having a handstamped Odesa type I trident. See: Raritan Stamps Auction #71, lot 1066, Dec. 2016.
13. Pateman, T. “Ukraine Tridents - The Importance of Raritan Catalogs.” Trevor Pateman’s Philately Blog, Feb. 16, 2015, http://www.armeniazemstvo.com/2015/02/ukraine-tridents-importance-of-raritan.html (accessed Aug. 25, 2017).
14. 14. Svenson, C. 1926. Ukraine-Handbook. Part I. History of Postage Stamp Issues of the Ukrainian State. [Ukraina-Handbuch. I. Teil-die geschichte der Brriefmarkenausgaben des Ukraina-staates.] Wiesbaden-Sonnenberg, private publication, 126–7 (in German).
15. Chuchin, F. G. (ed.) 1927. Catalog of Postage Stamps and Postal Stationary. Ukraine. [Katalog pochtovykh marok i tselnykh veshchei. Ukraina.] vol. 4, Moscow, Soviet Philatelic Association at the VTsIK Commission of the Lenin Fund for Homeless Children, 51–2 (in Russian). See also: Filateliia Ukrainy No. 23 (2000): 25 (in Ukrainian).                                                  16. Seichter, R. 1968. Supplement to the Special Catalog Ukraine 1966. [Nachtrag 1968 zum Ukraine-Sonderkatalog 1966.] Soltau, private publication, 5 (in German).
17. Seichter, R. 1963. Overview on Svenson’s Guide and Other Publications Concerning Ukrainian
Philately; State of Research in 1963. [Bisherige. Über das Svenson-Handbuch und andere frühere
Veröffentlichungen betreffend die Ukraine-Philatelie nach dein Stande der Forschung im Jahre 1963]. Soltau, private publication, 8 (in German).
18. Kramarenko, M. A. 2011. Ukraine. Catalog of Postage Stamps 1866–2010 [Ukraina katalog pochtovykh marok 1866–2010]. Donetsk, Novyi Mir, 74 (in Russian).
19. Mulyk, Ja. 2015. Catalog of Postage Stamps of Ukraine. 1918–2014. [Kataloh Poshtovykh marok Ukrainy. 1918–2014.] 3rd ed., Drohobych, Kolo, 43 (in Ukrainian).
20. Postal rates changed on Nov. 15, 1918, however, the Adzhamka post office apparently still used the previous rates on Nov. 18. See: Epstein, A. “The Postal Rates of Independent Ukraine, 1918–1920.” Ukrainian Philatelist No. 92 (2004): 15–32.
21. Anholenko, V. “Overprinting of Tridents on Postage Stamps for External Parties” [Zatryzubuvannia poshtovykh marok dlia storonnikh osib] Filatelistychna Dumka No. 7 (2013): 1–6 (in Ukrainian).
22. 31st Zabijaka Mail Auction, Jan. 15, 2017, lot 207.
23. Raritan Stamps, Inc., Auction #73, May 19, 2017, lot 1278.
24. Kapnist, S. “Kherson Postal District” [Khersonskii Pochtovyi Okrug] Ukrainskaia i Rossiiskaia
Filateliia No. 2 (1992): 3–11 (in Russian)